Ucas reveals 52,321 UK-born students have applied for university next year, when fees will rise to up to £9,000 a year The number of UK-born university applicants for next September – when fees rise to up to £9,000 a year – has plummeted by almost 12%, official figures show. The first set of statistics on applications to university next year, published by the Universities and Colleges and Admissions Service (Ucas) , reveal that 52,321 applicants have applied from within the UK, compared with 59,413 this time last year. Union leaders said the figures were proof that ministers’ decision to almost treble fees had been “a disaster”, while charities expressed concern that students from low-income homes may have been deterred from applying. The statistics show the number of applications received by universities by 15 October, the deadline for Oxford, Cambridge and courses in medicine, dentistry and veterinary medicine, and are an early indication of the total across all courses this year. Candidates for other universities have until 15 January to apply, but there has been a trend for early submissions and the figures include early applications for other universities and courses too. The number of applicants from within and outside the UK combined has fallen by 9% to 69,724, from 76,612 this time last year. The statistics show that the number of applications – candidates can apply to up to five universities – from the UK and elsewhere has fallen by 7.9% to 299,764, from 325,527 this time last year. Applications to Oxford, Cambridge, medicine, veterinary science and dentistry courses alone have fallen, but not by very much. The number of applicants has decreased by 0.8% (464 candidates), and the number of applications has gone down by 1.7% (2,298). Universities and politicians have been worried that the decision to almost treble tuition fees to up to £9,000 next year would deter many, particularly the most disadvantaged, from applying. Students can pay the fees with a student loan to be repaid when they are earning more than £21,000. The figures suggest more women than men have been put off from applying to university. Some 10.5% fewer women have applied this year, and 7% fewer men. Mature students appear to have been particularly deterred by the higher fees, the figures show. The number of applicants aged 40 or older has fallen by 27.8%, and among those aged between 30 and 39 the number has dropped by 22.7%. The figures do not show whether those from low-income families have been particularly deterred. Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and College Union, the trade union for lecturers, said the statistics showed the government’s fees policy had been a “disaster from the start”. “It is clearly having a serious impact on the choices young people make,” she said. “People should study the right course for them, not just the cheapest one or none at all. These depressing figures take us back to the time when it was cost, not ability, that determined your future.” But others said it was too early to interpret the figures as a sign of an overall fall in total applications to university. In 2006, when tuition fees last trebled from £1,000 a year to £3,000, applications fell by 4.5%, but were followed by a 7.1% rebound the following year. Two years after that, in 2009, applications soared by 10.1%. Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of the umbrella group for vice-chancellors, Universities UK, said: “Historically, the application figures at the end of October have proven to be unreliable indicators of the final numbers. It may also be that students are taking longer this year to consider their options.” Tessa Stone, chief executive of Brightside, an education charity, said the statistics showed many young people were confused by the new fee system. “The Ucas statistics are not disaggregated by income, so we don’t know where this fall [in applicants] is coming from, but I would bet that the most disadvantaged young people have been put off,” she said. “The figures published today show, for the most part, applications to the most competitive courses and universities. A drop in these applications shows that even the brightest young people are confused about whether to go to university. Young people we speak to say they are not being given enough information about bursaries they may be entitled to and are therefore unable to make a sensible decision about where to apply.” James Gould, chief executive of the Villiers Park Educational Trust, a charity that helps bright, less well-off students to attend top universities, said the figures should be a wake-up call for policymakers to properly explain the financial implications of higher fees. “We need to really get the message through that students won’t be using their credit cards to pay university fees. They won’t pay anything back until they earn £21,000 and even after that, their contributions won’t be that high.” The figures are broken down into applicants from the UK, those from within the European Union (but outside the UK) and from outside the EU. The number of applicants from within the UK has fallen by 11.9%, and from in the EU by 9.3%, but the number from outside the EU has grown by 8.8%. The number of applicants in England has fallen by 12.1%, in Northern Ireland by 13%, in Scotland by 11.8% and in Wales by 8.3%. Numbers of applicants from the east Midlands (down 20%), Yorkshire (17.3%) and the north-east (14.7%) have fallen furthest, the figures show. London (down 9.1%) and the south-east (8.1%) have been less affected. Applications to education degrees have fallen by 30%, and those to business studies by 26.1%, the figures show. Toni Pearce, vice-president of the National Union of Students, said a fall in mature students was a warning sign. “Ministers must stop tinkering around the edges of their shambolic reforms, listen to students, teachers and universities and completely overhaul their white paper before temporary chaos turns into permanent damage to our education system,” he said. David Willetts, the universities minister, said the number of applications for Oxbridge, medicine, veterinary science and dentistry had “broadly held up” compared with last year. “Going to university depends on ability not the ability to pay,” he said. “Most new students will not pay upfront, there will be more financial support for those from poorer families and everyone will make lower loan repayments than they do now once they are in well-paid jobs.” Wendy Piatt, director general of the Russell Group, which represents 20 leading universities in the UK including Oxbridge, said top universities would be “pumping millions more into financial support over the coming years”. “Students should certainly not be put off university by the new fees and funding system. If you’re good enough to get in, you can afford to go. “We will continue to urge every student with the talent, potential and ability to succeed at a Russell Group university to apply. In addition to the government’s student support package and the fee waivers and bursaries that our universities offer, we will continue actively to reach out to students from all backgrounds, especially those with no family history of higher education,” Piatt said. Individual university applications have not been revealed, but government sources have suggested there is a mixed picture. A report at the weekend suggested some universities were experiencing a steep drop in demand for courses beginning next September, with one, City University London, saying applications were down 41.4%. Goldsmiths has reported a 35% drop and Brunel has 24% fewer candidates, according to figures gathered by the Sunday Times. However, some universities, including the London School of Economics, Queen Mary and Bath, are seeing rises in applications, according to the report. Demographic factors could also be behind a slump in applications. The number of 18-year-olds in the UK is projected to decline over the rest of this decade by about 11%. Higher education Tuition fees Students Education policy Jessica Shepherd guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Ucas reveals 52,321 UK-born students have applied for university next year, when fees will rise to up to £9,000 a year The number of UK-born university applicants for next September – when fees rise to up to £9,000 a year – has plummeted by almost 12%, official figures show. The first set of statistics on applications to university next year, published by the Universities and Colleges and Admissions Service (Ucas) , reveal that 52,321 applicants have applied from within the UK, compared with 59,413 this time last year. Union leaders said the figures were proof that ministers’ decision to almost treble fees had been “a disaster”, while charities expressed concern that students from low-income homes may have been deterred from applying. The statistics show the number of applications received by universities by 15 October, the deadline for Oxford, Cambridge and courses in medicine, dentistry and veterinary medicine, and are an early indication of the total across all courses this year. Candidates for other universities have until 15 January to apply, but there has been a trend for early submissions and the figures include early applications for other universities and courses too. The number of applicants from within and outside the UK combined has fallen by 9% to 69,724, from 76,612 this time last year. The statistics show that the number of applications – candidates can apply to up to five universities – from the UK and elsewhere has fallen by 7.9% to 299,764, from 325,527 this time last year. Applications to Oxford, Cambridge, medicine, veterinary science and dentistry courses alone have fallen, but not by very much. The number of applicants has decreased by 0.8% (464 candidates), and the number of applications has gone down by 1.7% (2,298). Universities and politicians have been worried that the decision to almost treble tuition fees to up to £9,000 next year would deter many, particularly the most disadvantaged, from applying. Students can pay the fees with a student loan to be repaid when they are earning more than £21,000. The figures suggest more women than men have been put off from applying to university. Some 10.5% fewer women have applied this year, and 7% fewer men. Mature students appear to have been particularly deterred by the higher fees, the figures show. The number of applicants aged 40 or older has fallen by 27.8%, and among those aged between 30 and 39 the number has dropped by 22.7%. The figures do not show whether those from low-income families have been particularly deterred. Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and College Union, the trade union for lecturers, said the statistics showed the government’s fees policy had been a “disaster from the start”. “It is clearly having a serious impact on the choices young people make,” she said. “People should study the right course for them, not just the cheapest one or none at all. These depressing figures take us back to the time when it was cost, not ability, that determined your future.” But others said it was too early to interpret the figures as a sign of an overall fall in total applications to university. In 2006, when tuition fees last trebled from £1,000 a year to £3,000, applications fell by 4.5%, but were followed by a 7.1% rebound the following year. Two years after that, in 2009, applications soared by 10.1%. Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of the umbrella group for vice-chancellors, Universities UK, said: “Historically, the application figures at the end of October have proven to be unreliable indicators of the final numbers. It may also be that students are taking longer this year to consider their options.” Tessa Stone, chief executive of Brightside, an education charity, said the statistics showed many young people were confused by the new fee system. “The Ucas statistics are not disaggregated by income, so we don’t know where this fall [in applicants] is coming from, but I would bet that the most disadvantaged young people have been put off,” she said. “The figures published today show, for the most part, applications to the most competitive courses and universities. A drop in these applications shows that even the brightest young people are confused about whether to go to university. Young people we speak to say they are not being given enough information about bursaries they may be entitled to and are therefore unable to make a sensible decision about where to apply.” James Gould, chief executive of the Villiers Park Educational Trust, a charity that helps bright, less well-off students to attend top universities, said the figures should be a wake-up call for policymakers to properly explain the financial implications of higher fees. “We need to really get the message through that students won’t be using their credit cards to pay university fees. They won’t pay anything back until they earn £21,000 and even after that, their contributions won’t be that high.” The figures are broken down into applicants from the UK, those from within the European Union (but outside the UK) and from outside the EU. The number of applicants from within the UK has fallen by 11.9%, and from in the EU by 9.3%, but the number from outside the EU has grown by 8.8%. The number of applicants in England has fallen by 12.1%, in Northern Ireland by 13%, in Scotland by 11.8% and in Wales by 8.3%. Numbers of applicants from the east Midlands (down 20%), Yorkshire (17.3%) and the north-east (14.7%) have fallen furthest, the figures show. London (down 9.1%) and the south-east (8.1%) have been less affected. Applications to education degrees have fallen by 30%, and those to business studies by 26.1%, the figures show. Toni Pearce, vice-president of the National Union of Students, said a fall in mature students was a warning sign. “Ministers must stop tinkering around the edges of their shambolic reforms, listen to students, teachers and universities and completely overhaul their white paper before temporary chaos turns into permanent damage to our education system,” he said. David Willetts, the universities minister, said the number of applications for Oxbridge, medicine, veterinary science and dentistry had “broadly held up” compared with last year. “Going to university depends on ability not the ability to pay,” he said. “Most new students will not pay upfront, there will be more financial support for those from poorer families and everyone will make lower loan repayments than they do now once they are in well-paid jobs.” Wendy Piatt, director general of the Russell Group, which represents 20 leading universities in the UK including Oxbridge, said top universities would be “pumping millions more into financial support over the coming years”. “Students should certainly not be put off university by the new fees and funding system. If you’re good enough to get in, you can afford to go. “We will continue to urge every student with the talent, potential and ability to succeed at a Russell Group university to apply. In addition to the government’s student support package and the fee waivers and bursaries that our universities offer, we will continue actively to reach out to students from all backgrounds, especially those with no family history of higher education,” Piatt said. Individual university applications have not been revealed, but government sources have suggested there is a mixed picture. A report at the weekend suggested some universities were experiencing a steep drop in demand for courses beginning next September, with one, City University London, saying applications were down 41.4%. Goldsmiths has reported a 35% drop and Brunel has 24% fewer candidates, according to figures gathered by the Sunday Times. However, some universities, including the London School of Economics, Queen Mary and Bath, are seeing rises in applications, according to the report. Demographic factors could also be behind a slump in applications. The number of 18-year-olds in the UK is projected to decline over the rest of this decade by about 11%. Higher education Tuition fees Students Education policy Jessica Shepherd guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Environment NJ Goes After Three ‘Moderate’ Congressmen Over Clean Air Vote
October 24, 2011 No CommentClear air shouldn’t be a political issue. But in New Jersey, home to many deep-pocket pharmaceutical- and chemical-company political contributors, of course it is! Via email: Environment New Jersey announced a major online clean air accountability campaign, targeting three of New Jersey’s more moderate Republican Congressman, including Rep. Leonard Lance (R-7), Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-2) and Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-11), for three recent votes that threaten public health by undermining clean air and allowing more air pollution. “Everyone should be able to breathe clean air, but this bill puts tens of thousands of lives at risk by blocking the clean-up of deadly air pollution,” said Doug O’Malley, field director for Environment New Jersey. “We want to let New Jersey voters know their Congressman supported out-of-state polluters instead of standing up for New Jersey’s health. New Jerseyans deserve better.” The size of the online media purchase is described as a significant 5-figure buy and is targeting the state’s largest web-sites – including nj.com – with banners targeting hometown voters in all major newspapers, a homepage takeover of PolitickerNJ, sponsorship of the “Wake Up Call” e-mail newsletter and targeted Google ads. Ads will be running for a week. The House of Representatives approved the “TRAIN” Act, which would indefinitely delay the clean-up of toxic power plant pollution; another bill (H.R. 2681) that prevents clean air standards that lower mercury and other toxic air pollution from cement plants; and a bill (H.R. 2250) that would prevents standards to reduce toxic pollution from industrial incinerators and boilers at power plants. The “TRAIN” Act alone, if passed, could result in 139,500 lives lost due to smog, soot, and toxic air pollution.* In New Jersey, it could result in over 3,200 lives lost due to air pollution. The health benefits delivered by the incinerator and boiler standards are as high as $54 billion annually, and the health benefits from cement standards will be as high as $18 billion annually. All of these bills were voted on the heels of an Environment New Jersey report, “Danger in the Air,” that found New Jersey’s air to be some of the smoggiest in the country. The findings included that the North Jersey metropolitan area, including New York and Connecticut, ranked as the 5th smoggiest metropolitan area in the country this past summer. Findings from 2010 were equally alarming. Rep. Frank LoBiondo’s district, (R-2), includes much of South Jersey, including the Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton area which ranked as the 7th smoggiest small metropolitan area in the country. Rep. Leonard Lance’s district, (R-7), which stretches across central Jersey, including Middlesex-Somerset-Hunterdon Counties which ranked the 17th worst smoggiest in the country, with 17 smog alert days. “Clean air should not be a partisan issue – especially when these standards will clean up out-of-state power plants. The votes by these moderate Congressmen are more than disappointing – their decision sides with polluters over our public health – and we want to let as many New Jerseyans’ know where these Congressmen stand,” said O’Malley.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media You know things are bad in this country when you have Tom Donohue, President of the US Chamber of Commerce, and Richard Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO agreeing with one another. And when you have that kind of agreement, that means something so inarguable, so unassailable that to take a differing stance would forever paint you as an unserious idiot, unworthy of any attention. And Tom Donohue, despite h is treading on ethical and legal edges in his GOP pandering and international campaign money laundering , is no idiot. Despite all of his wailing and whinging over the deficit just a few short months ago , Donohue is fully on board the “let’s get jobs” wagon. And where do we get these jobs? Infrastructure . [F]or too long, the nation’s infrastructure policies have been kept separate and apart from the larger conversation about the U.S. economy. The benefits of infrastructure are frequently framed around short-term goals about job creation. While the focus on employment growth is certainly understandable, it is not the best way to target and deploy infrastructure dollars. And it means so-called “shovel ready projects” are all we can do while long-term investments in the smart grid, high-speed rail, and modern ports are stuck at the starting gate. So in addition to the focus on job growth in the short term, we need to rebalance the American economy for the long term on several key elements: higher exports, to take advantage of rising global demand; low-carbon technology, to lead the clean-energy revolution; innovation, to spur growth through ideas and their deployment; and greater opportunity, to reverse the troubling, decades-long rise in inequality. Infrastructure is fundamental to each of those elements. Yet while we know America’s infrastructure needs are substantial, we have not been able to pull together the resources to make the requisite investments. And when we do, we often fail to make infrastructure investments in an economy-enhancing way. This is why the proposal for a national infrastructure bank is so important. If designed and implemented appropriately, it would be a targeted mechanism to deal with critical new investments on a merit basis, while adhering to market forces and leveraging the private capital we know is ready to invest here in the United States. See, it’s not that hard to figure out. Even Donohue admits as much. The issue is whether we’re going to let this country be taken hostage over the GOP’s overriding need to take Obama out of his job.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media You know things are bad in this country when you have Tom Donohue, President of the US Chamber of Commerce, and Richard Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO agreeing with one another. And when you have that kind of agreement, that means something so inarguable, so unassailable that to take a differing stance would forever paint you as an unserious idiot, unworthy of any attention. And Tom Donohue, despite h is treading on ethical and legal edges in his GOP pandering and international campaign money laundering , is no idiot. Despite all of his wailing and whinging over the deficit just a few short months ago , Donohue is fully on board the “let’s get jobs” wagon. And where do we get these jobs? Infrastructure . [F]or too long, the nation’s infrastructure policies have been kept separate and apart from the larger conversation about the U.S. economy. The benefits of infrastructure are frequently framed around short-term goals about job creation. While the focus on employment growth is certainly understandable, it is not the best way to target and deploy infrastructure dollars. And it means so-called “shovel ready projects” are all we can do while long-term investments in the smart grid, high-speed rail, and modern ports are stuck at the starting gate. So in addition to the focus on job growth in the short term, we need to rebalance the American economy for the long term on several key elements: higher exports, to take advantage of rising global demand; low-carbon technology, to lead the clean-energy revolution; innovation, to spur growth through ideas and their deployment; and greater opportunity, to reverse the troubling, decades-long rise in inequality. Infrastructure is fundamental to each of those elements. Yet while we know America’s infrastructure needs are substantial, we have not been able to pull together the resources to make the requisite investments. And when we do, we often fail to make infrastructure investments in an economy-enhancing way. This is why the proposal for a national infrastructure bank is so important. If designed and implemented appropriately, it would be a targeted mechanism to deal with critical new investments on a merit basis, while adhering to market forces and leveraging the private capital we know is ready to invest here in the United States. See, it’s not that hard to figure out. Even Donohue admits as much. The issue is whether we’re going to let this country be taken hostage over the GOP’s overriding need to take Obama out of his job.
Continue reading …
The Baltimore Sun has clearly become the hometown cheering section for Lisa Simeone, the NPR host with the fierce radical moonlighting for “Occupy DC.” TV critic David Zurawik felt NPR was right to insist the activism was a violation of its ethics code, but insisted “Simeone's integrity is admirable, and some of the folks on the right who try to mock those involved in the Occupy movement should only have such high standards as they slavishly take their marching orders from a certain cable TV channel chairman.” This seems to ignore that liberals aren't watching the government turn a half-billion taxpayer dollars over to Rupert Murdoch every year. Zurawik added: “Whether you agree with her or not, you have admire the way this 54-year-old Baltimore resident has stood her activist ground.” Actually, no, you don't.
Continue reading …
Official figures show those arrested came from deprived backgrounds, striking a blow to theory that tackling gang culture is key to preventing repeat of disturbances Gangs did not play a pivotal role in the August riots, according to the latest official analysis of those arrested during the disturbances. The official figures show that 13% of those arrested in the riots have been identified as gang members, rising to 19% in London, but the analysis shows that even where the police identified gang members being present most forces believe they did not play a pivotal role. The finding by senior Whitehall officials is a blow to the principal response to the riots being pushed strongly by the work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith – that tackling gang culture is key to preventing any repeat of the disturbances. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and Home Office background analysis shows that those arrested during the riots overwhelmingly came from deprived areas and had the poorest educational backgrounds. More than two-thirds of the young people involved were classed as having special educational needs and one-third had been excluded from school in the past year. More than 42% got free school meals. The analysis shows that the ethnic backgrounds of those brought before the courts for riot-related offences were in line with the local population, with 42% of defendants white and 46% black. Only 7% were Asian. But the ethnic composition of court defendants was significantly different from the local area profile in three places: Haringey in north London, where 55% of defendants were black compared with 17% of young people locally; Nottingham, where 62% of defendants were black compared with 9% locally; and Birmingham, where 46% of defendants were black compared with 9% of young people locally. The Home Office figures were based on 5,175 crimes recorded across 19 police forces – the vast majority in London, Manchester and Birmingham. More than 40% happened within town or city centres and 20% within shopping malls or other “defined retail cores” in the town centres. Half the crimes were committed against commercial premises. A total of 2,584 shops and other commercial premises were targeted in the riots. The MoJ figures confirm that 90% of those arrested in the riots were male. More than half were under 20. They also confirm the more punitive nature of the courts, with 42% of those tried in magistrates courts sent to prison compared with only 12% normally. UK riots Gangs Communities Young people Crime London Manchester Nottingham Birmingham Alan Travis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Official figures show those arrested came from deprived backgrounds, striking a blow to theory that tackling gang culture is key to preventing repeat of disturbances Gangs did not play a pivotal role in the August riots, according to the latest official analysis of those arrested during the disturbances. The official figures show that 13% of those arrested in the riots have been identified as gang members, rising to 19% in London, but the analysis shows that even where the police identified gang members being present most forces believe they did not play a pivotal role. The finding by senior Whitehall officials is a blow to the principal response to the riots being pushed strongly by the work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith – that tackling gang culture is key to preventing any repeat of the disturbances. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and Home Office background analysis shows that those arrested during the riots overwhelmingly came from deprived areas and had the poorest educational backgrounds. More than two-thirds of the young people involved were classed as having special educational needs and one-third had been excluded from school in the past year. More than 42% got free school meals. The analysis shows that the ethnic backgrounds of those brought before the courts for riot-related offences were in line with the local population, with 42% of defendants white and 46% black. Only 7% were Asian. But the ethnic composition of court defendants was significantly different from the local area profile in three places: Haringey in north London, where 55% of defendants were black compared with 17% of young people locally; Nottingham, where 62% of defendants were black compared with 9% locally; and Birmingham, where 46% of defendants were black compared with 9% of young people locally. The Home Office figures were based on 5,175 crimes recorded across 19 police forces – the vast majority in London, Manchester and Birmingham. More than 40% happened within town or city centres and 20% within shopping malls or other “defined retail cores” in the town centres. Half the crimes were committed against commercial premises. A total of 2,584 shops and other commercial premises were targeted in the riots. The MoJ figures confirm that 90% of those arrested in the riots were male. More than half were under 20. They also confirm the more punitive nature of the courts, with 42% of those tried in magistrates courts sent to prison compared with only 12% normally. UK riots Gangs Communities Young people Crime London Manchester Nottingham Birmingham Alan Travis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Foreign secretary speaks out as Commons prepares to debate motion calling for referendum of UK’s relationship with EU William Hague, has told backbench Eurosceptics that Monday’s Commons vote on pulling out of Europe “is the wrong question at the wrong time”. The foreign secretary spoke out as David Cameron faced the most serious challenge to his authority since taking office. A large number of Conservative MPs are reportedly planning to rebel on the Commons motion, which calls for a referendum on the UK’s relationship with the EU. Cameron will meet parliamentary aides in Downing Street before the vote in an attempt to dissuade as many as 10 members of the government who are minded to rebel against the prime minister, requiring them to resign their posts. The coalition is sticking to its decision to impose a three-line whip on MPs to vote against the motion, despite criticism that it has been too heavy-handed. The motion calls for a nationwide referendum on whether Britain should leave the EU, renegotiate its treaty with Brussels, or remain a member on the current terms. The government will not suffer a defeat because Labour and the Lib Dems will vote down the motion, but a sizeable group of Conservative believes Cameron should honour pledges once made to allow a national vote on Britain’s relationship with Europe. They are calling for the repatriation of social and employment rights. Hague – formerly one of the Tory party’s most high-profile Eurosceptics – defended the leadership’s decision to impose a three-line whip on the grounds that the motion being debated was “completely against the policy of the government”. “This proposition is the wrong question at the wrong time. It was not in the manifesto of either of the governing parties,” he said. “The whole relationship with the European Union is a matter that concerns the government … it is not just something for the House of Commons to put up some graffiti about.” He said an in/out referendum was not the right idea, adding: “I have argued for more referendums than almost anybody else, and I have argued against the euro more comprehensively than almost anybody else, but this proposition … cuts right across the rules for holding referendums that we have just agreed by large majorities. It would create additional economic uncertainty in this country. “The right referendum is that, whenever any government suggests handing more power from Britain to the EU, the British people are consulted – that is the right policy.” The Liberal Democrats do not support the repatriation of powers from Brussels, and the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, issued a statement warning that it was “far too early to speculate” about what the government’s position would be in the event of any moves to change EU treaties. Simon Hughes, the Lib Dem party leader, told Sky News: “I don’t think suddenly getting into a debate about whether or not we should be in the European Union, where we do half our business, is the right thing to do. “I believe that if we have the debate in the future, if the occasion comes up when there is a proposal to transfer powers, that the people, after the debate, will say yes again. “Now, there is an issue about whether the balance of powers is correct but nobody stood on a platform of having a referendum immediately now, just out of the blue. Certainly we didn’t.” The Conservative MP Bernard Jenkin told BBC Breakfast the EU referendum debate was “basically about democracy”. Jenkin, who is in favour of renegotiation rather than leaving the EU, denied the timing for a referendum was poor and said the call was in tune with the wider public. “When even John Major [the former Conservative prime minister who signed the Maastricht Treaty] is saying now is the moment for us to use our leverage to get powers back top the European Union, it would seem a good time,” he said. “Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be a treaty coming down the track to hang a referendum on, so we haven’t got that leverage. This would be an opening shot consultative referendum, to ask the British people about what the dilemma facing this country is. Do we stay in and carry on as now? Do we get out completely, or as the majority of polls show people want, renegotiate our relationship? “I’m sorry about that, but I think the vast majority of MPs know in their hearts there should be a referendum.” But David Lidington, the Conservative minister for Europe, said that, for the wider British public, an EU referendum is “the last thing on their minds”. “I’ve had some identically worded campaign letters from constituents calling for a referendum,” he told Breakfast News. “When I go around the constituency at political and non-political events, this is the last thing on their minds. “What they are worried about are how their school-leaver or graduate children are going to get jobs; they’re worried about the future of public services; they’re concerned about crime and about the welfare system. They want the government to sort out those problems, particularly the challenges as regards employment.” The UK Independence party leaderNigel Farage, said it was fascinating to watch the Conservatives “tear themselves apart over this”. “Polls over the last few days have clearly shown that the general public believe MPs should be able to vote how they like regarding an EU referendum,” the MEP said. “I urge all MPs across the parties to vote with their conscience ahead of their party or career. It is the least the British people deserve.” Cameron attempted to take some of the heat out of the rebellion at the EU summit in Brussels on Sunday. He used a press conference to appeal directly to potential rebels, talking up the chance of repatriating powers with the “possibility” of treaty change coming onto the agenda as early as December as the euro countries push towards fiscal integration. The prime minister said he had proved his ability to exact a good price when he agreed an EU treaty change that created a new mechanism for bailing out troubled eurozone countries but exempted Britain from having to pay for bailouts from 2013. It is not clear whether this would trigger the government’s stated commitment to a referendum because it is due to stage a vote only if new powers are transferred from Westminster to Brussels, and any change by Cameron would be likely to do the reverse. At the summit, Cameron became embroiled in a row with the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy , over Britain’s role in talks to solve the crisis enveloping the euro. Sarkozy apparently told the British prime minister to “shut up” and said he was fed up with him criticising the eurozone countries “and telling us what to do”. William Hague David Cameron Foreign policy Conservatives Liberal-Conservative coalition Labour Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg Simon Hughes UK Independence party (Ukip) European Union Nigel Farage Hélène Mulholland guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Foreign secretary speaks out as Commons prepares to debate motion calling for referendum of UK’s relationship with EU William Hague, has told backbench Eurosceptics that Monday’s Commons vote on pulling out of Europe “is the wrong question at the wrong time”. The foreign secretary spoke out as David Cameron faced the most serious challenge to his authority since taking office. A large number of Conservative MPs are reportedly planning to rebel on the Commons motion, which calls for a referendum on the UK’s relationship with the EU. Cameron will meet parliamentary aides in Downing Street before the vote in an attempt to dissuade as many as 10 members of the government who are minded to rebel against the prime minister, requiring them to resign their posts. The coalition is sticking to its decision to impose a three-line whip on MPs to vote against the motion, despite criticism that it has been too heavy-handed. The motion calls for a nationwide referendum on whether Britain should leave the EU, renegotiate its treaty with Brussels, or remain a member on the current terms. The government will not suffer a defeat because Labour and the Lib Dems will vote down the motion, but a sizeable group of Conservative believes Cameron should honour pledges once made to allow a national vote on Britain’s relationship with Europe. They are calling for the repatriation of social and employment rights. Hague – formerly one of the Tory party’s most high-profile Eurosceptics – defended the leadership’s decision to impose a three-line whip on the grounds that the motion being debated was “completely against the policy of the government”. “This proposition is the wrong question at the wrong time. It was not in the manifesto of either of the governing parties,” he said. “The whole relationship with the European Union is a matter that concerns the government … it is not just something for the House of Commons to put up some graffiti about.” He said an in/out referendum was not the right idea, adding: “I have argued for more referendums than almost anybody else, and I have argued against the euro more comprehensively than almost anybody else, but this proposition … cuts right across the rules for holding referendums that we have just agreed by large majorities. It would create additional economic uncertainty in this country. “The right referendum is that, whenever any government suggests handing more power from Britain to the EU, the British people are consulted – that is the right policy.” The Liberal Democrats do not support the repatriation of powers from Brussels, and the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, issued a statement warning that it was “far too early to speculate” about what the government’s position would be in the event of any moves to change EU treaties. Simon Hughes, the Lib Dem party leader, told Sky News: “I don’t think suddenly getting into a debate about whether or not we should be in the European Union, where we do half our business, is the right thing to do. “I believe that if we have the debate in the future, if the occasion comes up when there is a proposal to transfer powers, that the people, after the debate, will say yes again. “Now, there is an issue about whether the balance of powers is correct but nobody stood on a platform of having a referendum immediately now, just out of the blue. Certainly we didn’t.” The Conservative MP Bernard Jenkin told BBC Breakfast the EU referendum debate was “basically about democracy”. Jenkin, who is in favour of renegotiation rather than leaving the EU, denied the timing for a referendum was poor and said the call was in tune with the wider public. “When even John Major [the former Conservative prime minister who signed the Maastricht Treaty] is saying now is the moment for us to use our leverage to get powers back top the European Union, it would seem a good time,” he said. “Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be a treaty coming down the track to hang a referendum on, so we haven’t got that leverage. This would be an opening shot consultative referendum, to ask the British people about what the dilemma facing this country is. Do we stay in and carry on as now? Do we get out completely, or as the majority of polls show people want, renegotiate our relationship? “I’m sorry about that, but I think the vast majority of MPs know in their hearts there should be a referendum.” But David Lidington, the Conservative minister for Europe, said that, for the wider British public, an EU referendum is “the last thing on their minds”. “I’ve had some identically worded campaign letters from constituents calling for a referendum,” he told Breakfast News. “When I go around the constituency at political and non-political events, this is the last thing on their minds. “What they are worried about are how their school-leaver or graduate children are going to get jobs; they’re worried about the future of public services; they’re concerned about crime and about the welfare system. They want the government to sort out those problems, particularly the challenges as regards employment.” The UK Independence party leaderNigel Farage, said it was fascinating to watch the Conservatives “tear themselves apart over this”. “Polls over the last few days have clearly shown that the general public believe MPs should be able to vote how they like regarding an EU referendum,” the MEP said. “I urge all MPs across the parties to vote with their conscience ahead of their party or career. It is the least the British people deserve.” Cameron attempted to take some of the heat out of the rebellion at the EU summit in Brussels on Sunday. He used a press conference to appeal directly to potential rebels, talking up the chance of repatriating powers with the “possibility” of treaty change coming onto the agenda as early as December as the euro countries push towards fiscal integration. The prime minister said he had proved his ability to exact a good price when he agreed an EU treaty change that created a new mechanism for bailing out troubled eurozone countries but exempted Britain from having to pay for bailouts from 2013. It is not clear whether this would trigger the government’s stated commitment to a referendum because it is due to stage a vote only if new powers are transferred from Westminster to Brussels, and any change by Cameron would be likely to do the reverse. At the summit, Cameron became embroiled in a row with the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy , over Britain’s role in talks to solve the crisis enveloping the euro. Sarkozy apparently told the British prime minister to “shut up” and said he was fed up with him criticising the eurozone countries “and telling us what to do”. William Hague David Cameron Foreign policy Conservatives Liberal-Conservative coalition Labour Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg Simon Hughes UK Independence party (Ukip) European Union Nigel Farage Hélène Mulholland guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …